|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 17 2021 21:48 Taelshin wrote:
@silv "The prevailing thought in the US appears to be that once you have started something, you deserve everything you get and more"
I like how you said this and it's something to think about for sure, good post.
you piqued my interest.
what do the murderers of Ahmaud Arbery deserve according to the bolded doctrine?
|
@Artisreal Are you asking me or Simberto, sorry I didn't use the forum quote function when I quoted his post. My opinion/answer is I'm not sure and that's why I liked the post it gives room for thought.
@artisereal Geeze my bad I missed also you were asking about the Arbery case, honestly Haven't had a chance to watch it and there for I'm not informed to really talk about it, but I will def be Watching it when I get the chance.
|
Taelshin, the long story short is that if you perform a dialectic regarding retribution, you end up concluding it doesn't create net-good. Are you assuming retribution has a net-positive impact on society?
|
@moodoo I'm not sure, I Know I'm leaning one way, but id be willing to hear some different takes. Id be interested in your take Mohdoo, I generally disagree with you on most things, But also respect you getting your opinion out there.
|
On November 18 2021 03:47 Taelshin wrote:
@moodoo I'm not sure, I Know I'm leaning one way, but id be willing to hear some different takes. Id be interested in your take Mohdoo, I generally disagree with you on most things, But also respect you getting your opinion out there.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment/201804/why-punishment-doesnt-reduce-crime
This article does a good job at summarizing what I have learned over the years. Could you read this (its brief) and give me your thoughts on what issues you have with it?
|
United States44286 Posts
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/albuquerque-new-response-911-calls-involving-mentally-ill-people-rcna5623
“We’re trained to stay away from the door, to knock softly, to speak in a gentle voice,” he said recently as he made his rounds in downtown Albuquerque. “We want to make sure the person’s safe. After that, we start talking about their behavioral health concerns. From there, we want to see … what type of services would be most appropriate for them.”
Should behavioral health responders find themselves in possible danger, they’re prepared to call police for backup and enforcement, Ruiz-Angel said. But in the program’s first six weeks, “no call has gone sideways.”
Albuquerque has had a use of force problem for years now with regular police escalation of what are essentially welfare checks. They’ve created a new branch of first responder that isn’t under the police department for when people call 911 as a crisis line. This is exactly what is meant when people call for defunding the police. They’re not meant for people in crisis, they’re not trained for people in crisis, they’re not equipped for people in crisis. It’s not their job, it never was their job, they’re terrible at it.
Hoping this spreads.
|
|
|
@mohdoo Good read, Ill play along although this has little to do with a person defending them self with or without deadly force and when that is legitimate at the time. Which was the topic.
Couple things I noted from the article, this line
"We release them to essentially no safety net in the community."
That sucks, I am not gonna pretend I think that's good, But I'm also not gonna pretend its a popular stance for a politician to push spending(more) tax payer money to Ex-con's. Not sure what to do with that one.
Another pick is
"Retribution is a common justification for tough sentences."
If I understand that correctly its pretty much saying bad thing was done, we are punishing person for bad thing, I've got no problem with that, obviously the issue is does the punishment meet the crime so that's extremely subjective which frankly much of that article is.
The recidivism stuff is always interesting but I've never invested time in researching what other countries have so I don't have much to add to it.
But to remind you, we or I was not talking about the monolith that is the justice system in the US, the discussion unless I'm wrong was mainly focused on what one can do if they feel their life is threatened, resist, submit, use deadly force. This is the question.
|
|
|
@Jimmic "It is about getting out of the mind set of living in the past and doing what is best for the future."
+ Show Spoiler +
Sorry couldn't help myself, great episode.
|
On November 18 2021 04:55 Taelshin wrote:@Jimmic "It is about getting out of the mind set of living in the past and doing what is best for the future." + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2MSluOLM0U Sorry couldn't help myself, great episode.
It is a reasonable point, though.
The question is what you want from policy.
I think i want policies to make the country better. That means less crime, for example. And the retribution mindset has proven that it is pretty bad at actually producing less crime in a society.
A justice system focused on rehabilitation and prevention instead of retribution is better at reducing crime.
It is less expensive in the long run because criminals are expensive to society, while rehabilitated criminals actually produce value.
It is also much more aligned with the view that human dignity and human rights are inalienable.
The US retribution system basically only produces a short emotional high, but doesn't really better society. Instead, it is very good at producing repeat offenders.
|
|
|
There's a line on both sides where the situation becomes bad.
USA is arguably too far on the retribution/punishment side, especially for "minor" crimes like drug possession leading to years long sentences if you're poor, and seemingly arbitrary sentences for many things (elected judges is a mistake).
On the other side you have things like San Francisco (For Canada, Vancouver) where minor crimes are given a slap on the wrist leading to repeat offenders being arrested for the 100th time with no/little jail time. First one I found:
The man was arrested Friday night for the alleged theft of the yoga pants and was released Saturday. Police are not releasing his name because charges against him have not been approved by Crown prosecutors.
He has a lengthy criminal history, with 103 prior criminal convictions, including 38 for theft.
https://vancouversun.com/news/crime/man-arrested-for-stealing-47-yoga-pants-has-struck-again-with-another-theft
There's a place for both long term punishment as well as rehabilitation. Jail is extremely expensive. If it costs someone their job, or ability to retain a job in the long term that they otherwise could've kept, it's a pretty big detriment to society, and their long term value to it. On the other hand, you need to keep the chronically terrible people out/away from society. Society has to pay for their incarceration, but there's more value in keeping them locked up than in the individual costs to people they impact.
|
Northern Ireland27348 Posts
On November 18 2021 05:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2021 04:55 Taelshin wrote:@Jimmic "It is about getting out of the mind set of living in the past and doing what is best for the future." + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2MSluOLM0U Sorry couldn't help myself, great episode. It is a reasonable point, though. The question is what you want from policy. I think i want policies to make the country better. That means less crime, for example. And the retribution mindset has proven that it is pretty bad at actually producing less crime in a society. A justice system focused on rehabilitation and prevention instead of retribution is better at reducing crime. It is less expensive in the long run because criminals are expensive to society, while rehabilitated criminals actually produce value. It is also much more aligned with the view that human dignity and human rights are inalienable. The US retribution system basically only produces a short emotional high, but doesn't really better society. Instead, it is very good at producing repeat offenders.
Well exactly, what do you want from the policy kind of influences how you gauge the effectiveness of said policy. I think it's absolutely possible to consider a punitive approach effective, if, essentially the end goal is to punish wrong-doers.
Is it sensible policy on a wider, societal level to do this and have unemployable pariahs who will almost inevitable be tempted back into crime by virtue of them being unemployable pariahs? Absolutely not.
Does it make much sense in terms of preventing future crime, either via cultural deterrence, or deterring existing offenders from doing so again? Again no, it doesn't do this.
It basically doesn't work on any metric you look to judge it by, bar a desire for the transgressor to get hammered. If that's what you want then, inhuman treatment of criminals is effective.
|
United States44286 Posts
One of the things that annoys me about US prisons is charging for communication with the outside world. It’s not controversial that inmates that maintain normal social connections are far more likely to reenter society successfully. Maintaining regular communication with family, friends, children etc. is key to rehabilitation. And yet prisons charge extortionate prices to let inmates Skype their families. Even if Skype really did cost $1/minute that would be money well spent on crime reduction. The fact that it’s free and yet they charge through the nose for it makes me suspect that they’d prefer repeat offenders (regular customers).
The success should be evaluated on the long term outcomes of the prisoners. A prison that only prepares occupants for more prison is actively damaging society, prisoners are expensive to incarcerate and the cycle of arrest, charge, sentence etc. each time someone is released can’t be cheap either. Given my tax dollars are paying for it I would much rather they prioritize efficient long term cost reduction than retribution. That may mean subsidized accommodation, free cell phones, jobs programs etc. for former inmates but I’d prefer to pay for that than much more expensive alternatives.
|
On the other side you have things like San Francisco (For Canada, Vancouver) where minor crimes are given a slap on the wrist leading to repeat offenders being arrested for the 100th time with no/little jail time. First one I found:
I think a society with less heinous wealth disparity and less awful wage-cost of living would have less of an issue with theft, and probably crime in general.
Paying people a thriving wage and getting them healthcare would probably do a hell of a lot for the state of crime in this country.
|
Northern Ireland27348 Posts
On November 18 2021 05:43 KwarK wrote:
One of the things that annoys me about US prisons is charging for communication with the outside world. It’s not controversial that inmates that maintain normal social connections are far more likely to reenter society successfully. Maintaining regular communication with family, friends, children etc. is key to rehabilitation. And yet prisons charge extortionate prices to let inmates Skype their families. Even if Skype really did cost $1/minute that would be money well spent on crime reduction. The fact that it’s free and yet they charge through the nose for it makes me suspect that they’d prefer repeat offenders (regular customers).
The success should be evaluated on the long term outcomes of the prisoners. A prison that only prepares occupants for more prison is actively damaging society, prisoners are expensive to incarcerate and the cycle of arrest, charge, sentence etc. each time someone is released can’t be cheap either. Given my tax dollars are paying for it I would much rather they prioritize efficient long term cost reduction than retribution. That may mean subsidized accommodation, free cell phones, jobs programs etc. for former inmates but I’d prefer to pay for that than much more expensive alternatives.
Jesus that was news to me, and I didn't have a high opinion of the US correctional system to begin with, to put it mildly.
Given the thing that private prison labour is a thing, amongst other factors I think one ends up with the natural conclusion that it isn't a badly constructed system via incompetence in terms of rehabilitation, but an extremely well-constructed system in terms of reducing rehabilitative possibilities and actively facilitating re-offending to recirculate people back into the system.
|
On November 18 2021 06:09 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2021 05:43 KwarK wrote:
One of the things that annoys me about US prisons is charging for communication with the outside world. It’s not controversial that inmates that maintain normal social connections are far more likely to reenter society successfully. Maintaining regular communication with family, friends, children etc. is key to rehabilitation. And yet prisons charge extortionate prices to let inmates Skype their families. Even if Skype really did cost $1/minute that would be money well spent on crime reduction. The fact that it’s free and yet they charge through the nose for it makes me suspect that they’d prefer repeat offenders (regular customers).
The success should be evaluated on the long term outcomes of the prisoners. A prison that only prepares occupants for more prison is actively damaging society, prisoners are expensive to incarcerate and the cycle of arrest, charge, sentence etc. each time someone is released can’t be cheap either. Given my tax dollars are paying for it I would much rather they prioritize efficient long term cost reduction than retribution. That may mean subsidized accommodation, free cell phones, jobs programs etc. for former inmates but I’d prefer to pay for that than much more expensive alternatives. Jesus that was news to me, and I didn't have a high opinion of the US correctional system to begin with, to put it mildly. Given the thing that private prison labour is a thing, amongst other factors I think one ends up with the natural conclusion that it isn't a badly constructed system via incompetence in terms of rehabilitation, but an extremely well-constructed system in terms of reducing rehabilitative possibilities and actively facilitating re-offending to recirculate people back into the system. The US has privately owned prisons (I believe its somewhere around 8% of inmates). They make money off of housing prisoners. Ofcourse their goal is to make sure people come back to prison after they serve their sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
