|
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 July 31 2023 20:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 13:22 Salazarz wrote:
Median rent in SF is $3000 per month. A $15/hour job nets you $2400 per month working 40 hours per week, before taxes are paid. But sure, hopelessness and lack of opportunity aren't real. Just gotta put more people behind bars to make the rest of the troublemakers fall in line and start pursuing The American Dream in earnest. At first I thought this was a fair point, but then I realized the median rent price doesn't tell us much when we are trying specifically to focus on the "underbelly" of society. If the spread is huge, and the 10th percentile is $500, then a $15/hour job allows you to pay your rent just fine. You don't compare the median rent with the minimum wage, because the median rent should correspond approximately with the median wage. Of course, in the case of SF specifically I am pretty confident that the p10 is also far too high, and then you have the problem that minimum earners cannot live in the city they are expected to work in... and that would be a fair point to make. Furthermore, regarding homelessness, it's quite a vicious circle, because I don't doubt you can join a gang that knocks over supermarkets to steal pallets of tide pods while homeless, but it's probably hard to hold down any kind of job without a permanent address. So if rent is too expensive, people on minimum wage are forced out of their homes, which in turn causes them to lose the job they had, and are now homeless and forced to turn to crime to subsist.
People don't just turn to crime because they're starving and homeless. A lot of crime is committed because people simply feel stuck and see no way to improve their lives via legal means. You might be able to afford a crappy box apartment and your daily dose of ramen on a minimum wage job, but if that's all you have to look forward to for the next 50 years, well, it's not surprising if one day you start stealing tide pods (or stealing cars, or breaking into nicer apartments, whatever). And to someone like that, the threat of a longer prison sentence ain't likely to mean much. As far as they're concerned, life sucks and will always suck, anyway.
|
On July 31 2023 23:51 ChristianS wrote:
Thanks for that. I was thinking somebody with professional experience in behavior and operating conditioning would be able to illuminate a little more why the current system doesn’t work. I didn’t get into it since it’s not my area, but my suspicion is that if operant conditioning is your goal, incarceration is a pretty poor choice of stimulus. It’s too abstract, and too removed from the actual behavior to actually be effective training. If you locked your dog up in Rikers every time they shit on the floor it would probably not be a very effective way to discourage the behavior.
Yep I agree, however it's very rewarding/reinforcing for those implementing the punishment as it fulfills a sensory function of control over their environment. Behavior Analysis 101 talks about the classic example of a parent punishing a child for bad behavior with a long timeout; regardless of whether or not it makes a difference on the rate of problem behavior of the child, the parent will keep doing it because they're rewarded with exerting control over the situation and not worrying about the kid. That's why I was unsure whether the point was behavior change or to impart justice; I have a sneaking suspicion the historical underpinnings of our legal system are more grounded in the latter than the former. For me it would also depend on the severity of the crime; I'd be more interested in imparting justice vs. behavior change if it was a serial killer or child rapist or something, but for something like shoplifting it would be vice versa.
If behavior change was the goal, incarceration could still work, but the lengths of time would need to be much shorter, days/weeks instead of months/years.
On July 31 2023 23:53 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On July 31 2023 13:22 Salazarz wrote:
Median rent in SF is $3000 per month. A $15/hour job nets you $2400 per month working 40 hours per week, before taxes are paid. But sure, hopelessness and lack of opportunity aren't real. Just gotta put more people behind bars to make the rest of the troublemakers fall in line and start pursuing The American Dream in earnest. At first I thought this was a fair point, but then I realized the median rent price doesn't tell us much when we are trying specifically to focus on the "underbelly" of society. If the spread is huge, and the 10th percentile is $500, then a $15/hour job allows you to pay your rent just fine. You don't compare the median rent with the minimum wage, because the median rent should correspond approximately with the median wage. Of course, in the case of SF specifically I am pretty confident that the p10 is also far too high, and then you have the problem that minimum earners cannot live in the city they are expected to work in... and that would be a fair point to make. Furthermore, regarding homelessness, it's quite a vicious circle, because I don't doubt you can join a gang that knocks over supermarkets to steal pallets of tide pods while homeless, but it's probably hard to hold down any kind of job without a permanent address. So if rent is too expensive, people on minimum wage are forced out of their homes, which in turn causes them to lose the job they had, and are now homeless and forced to turn to crime to subsist. People don't just turn to crime because they're starving and homeless. A lot of crime is committed because people simply feel stuck and see no way to improve their lives via legal means. You might be able to afford a crappy box apartment and your daily dose of ramen on a minimum wage job, but if that's all you have to look forward to for the next 50 years, well, it's not surprising if one day you start stealing tide pods (or stealing cars, or breaking into nicer apartments, whatever). And to someone like that, the threat of a longer prison sentence ain't likely to mean much. As far as they're concerned, life sucks and will always suck, anyway.
Very true, that's why the state would need to go out of its way to ensure those who are struggling enough to engage in shoplifting see success when using legal means. State-sponsored work programs engaging in meaningful work that ensure decently high wages.
|
On July 31 2023 23:59 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 23:51 ChristianS wrote:
Thanks for that. I was thinking somebody with professional experience in behavior and operating conditioning would be able to illuminate a little more why the current system doesn’t work. I didn’t get into it since it’s not my area, but my suspicion is that if operant conditioning is your goal, incarceration is a pretty poor choice of stimulus. It’s too abstract, and too removed from the actual behavior to actually be effective training. If you locked your dog up in Rikers every time they shit on the floor it would probably not be a very effective way to discourage the behavior. Yep I agree, however it's very rewarding/reinforcing for those implementing the punishment as it fulfills a sensory function of control over their environment. Behavior Analysis 101 talks about the classic example of a parent punishing a child for bad behavior with a long timeout; regardless of whether or not it makes a difference on the rate of problem behavior of the child, the parent will keep doing it because they're rewarded with exerting control over the situation and not worrying about the kid. That's why I was unsure whether the point was behavior change or to impart justice; I have a sneaking suspicion the historical underpinnings of our legal system are more grounded in the latter than the former. For me it would also depend on the severity of the crime; I'd be more interested in imparting justice vs. behavior change if it was a serial killer or child rapist or something, but for something like shoplifting it would be vice versa. If behavior change was the goal, incarceration could still work, but the lengths of time would need to be much shorter, days/weeks instead of months/years. Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 23:53 Salazarz wrote:On July 31 2023 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On July 31 2023 13:22 Salazarz wrote:
Median rent in SF is $3000 per month. A $15/hour job nets you $2400 per month working 40 hours per week, before taxes are paid. But sure, hopelessness and lack of opportunity aren't real. Just gotta put more people behind bars to make the rest of the troublemakers fall in line and start pursuing The American Dream in earnest. At first I thought this was a fair point, but then I realized the median rent price doesn't tell us much when we are trying specifically to focus on the "underbelly" of society. If the spread is huge, and the 10th percentile is $500, then a $15/hour job allows you to pay your rent just fine. You don't compare the median rent with the minimum wage, because the median rent should correspond approximately with the median wage. Of course, in the case of SF specifically I am pretty confident that the p10 is also far too high, and then you have the problem that minimum earners cannot live in the city they are expected to work in... and that would be a fair point to make. Furthermore, regarding homelessness, it's quite a vicious circle, because I don't doubt you can join a gang that knocks over supermarkets to steal pallets of tide pods while homeless, but it's probably hard to hold down any kind of job without a permanent address. So if rent is too expensive, people on minimum wage are forced out of their homes, which in turn causes them to lose the job they had, and are now homeless and forced to turn to crime to subsist. People don't just turn to crime because they're starving and homeless. A lot of crime is committed because people simply feel stuck and see no way to improve their lives via legal means. You might be able to afford a crappy box apartment and your daily dose of ramen on a minimum wage job, but if that's all you have to look forward to for the next 50 years, well, it's not surprising if one day you start stealing tide pods (or stealing cars, or breaking into nicer apartments, whatever). And to someone like that, the threat of a longer prison sentence ain't likely to mean much. As far as they're concerned, life sucks and will always suck, anyway. Very true, that's why the state would need to go out of its way to ensure those who are struggling enough to engage in shoplifting see success when using legal means. State-sponsored work programs engaging in meaningful work that ensure decently high wages.
I think the problem is that there simply are not enough jobs that an unskilled worker can meaningfully do for such a scheme to be rolled out at the required scale.
If enough of said jobs existed they wouldn't be in this predicament to begin with.
A state work program would basically just be paying workers to do useless, inefficient work. Kind of like how in Soviet Russia workers were paid to dig holes then fill them in.
|
On July 31 2023 23:59 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 23:51 ChristianS wrote:
Thanks for that. I was thinking somebody with professional experience in behavior and operating conditioning would be able to illuminate a little more why the current system doesn’t work. I didn’t get into it since it’s not my area, but my suspicion is that if operant conditioning is your goal, incarceration is a pretty poor choice of stimulus. It’s too abstract, and too removed from the actual behavior to actually be effective training. If you locked your dog up in Rikers every time they shit on the floor it would probably not be a very effective way to discourage the behavior. Yep I agree, however it's very rewarding/reinforcing for those implementing the punishment as it fulfills a sensory function of control over their environment. Behavior Analysis 101 talks about the classic example of a parent punishing a child for bad behavior with a long timeout; regardless of whether or not it makes a difference on the rate of problem behavior of the child, the parent will keep doing it because they're rewarded with exerting control over the situation and not worrying about the kid. That's why I was unsure whether the point was behavior change or to impart justice; I have a sneaking suspicion the historical underpinnings of our legal system are more grounded in the latter than the former. For me it would also depend on the severity of the crime; I'd be more interested in imparting justice vs. behavior change if it was a serial killer or child rapist or something, but for something like shoplifting it would be vice versa. If behavior change was the goal, incarceration could still work, but the lengths of time would need to be much shorter, days/weeks instead of months/years. Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 23:53 Salazarz wrote:On July 31 2023 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On July 31 2023 13:22 Salazarz wrote:
Median rent in SF is $3000 per month. A $15/hour job nets you $2400 per month working 40 hours per week, before taxes are paid. But sure, hopelessness and lack of opportunity aren't real. Just gotta put more people behind bars to make the rest of the troublemakers fall in line and start pursuing The American Dream in earnest. At first I thought this was a fair point, but then I realized the median rent price doesn't tell us much when we are trying specifically to focus on the "underbelly" of society. If the spread is huge, and the 10th percentile is $500, then a $15/hour job allows you to pay your rent just fine. You don't compare the median rent with the minimum wage, because the median rent should correspond approximately with the median wage. Of course, in the case of SF specifically I am pretty confident that the p10 is also far too high, and then you have the problem that minimum earners cannot live in the city they are expected to work in... and that would be a fair point to make. Furthermore, regarding homelessness, it's quite a vicious circle, because I don't doubt you can join a gang that knocks over supermarkets to steal pallets of tide pods while homeless, but it's probably hard to hold down any kind of job without a permanent address. So if rent is too expensive, people on minimum wage are forced out of their homes, which in turn causes them to lose the job they had, and are now homeless and forced to turn to crime to subsist. People don't just turn to crime because they're starving and homeless. A lot of crime is committed because people simply feel stuck and see no way to improve their lives via legal means. You might be able to afford a crappy box apartment and your daily dose of ramen on a minimum wage job, but if that's all you have to look forward to for the next 50 years, well, it's not surprising if one day you start stealing tide pods (or stealing cars, or breaking into nicer apartments, whatever). And to someone like that, the threat of a longer prison sentence ain't likely to mean much. As far as they're concerned, life sucks and will always suck, anyway. Very true, that's why the state would need to go out of its way to ensure those who are struggling enough to engage in shoplifting see success when using legal means. State-sponsored work programs engaging in meaningful work that ensure decently high wages.
What you're describing ultimately fleshes out the idea of rehabilitation, in the context of how different countries approach crime and whether it's more punitive or rehabilitative. The rehabilitative approach which assumes that criminals are human just like anyone else, and even if they're not a perfectly rational actor, they still have grounded reasons for doing the things they're doing, as opposed to saying they're just scum who haven't been stomped into submission yet like the punitive approach dictates. They still basically operate from a set of wants and needs they have for their life, and feel like what they're doing is the way they need to go about getting those things.
If you're able to provide a roadmap for someone to seek new behaviors as a path for legitimately improving their lives, and incentivize them to explore that path, you achieve much more of a profound result on crime and recidivism, by giving people the tools to live a decent life without having to make those choices that lead to crime. Easier said than done, but it gives good language to the process of criminal justice, as one that's more than just playing whack-a-mole and crossing your fingers, that's seeking to actually provide a net benefit to society, for as many people in it as possible.
|
On July 31 2023 23:59 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 23:51 ChristianS wrote:
Thanks for that. I was thinking somebody with professional experience in behavior and operating conditioning would be able to illuminate a little more why the current system doesn’t work. I didn’t get into it since it’s not my area, but my suspicion is that if operant conditioning is your goal, incarceration is a pretty poor choice of stimulus. It’s too abstract, and too removed from the actual behavior to actually be effective training. If you locked your dog up in Rikers every time they shit on the floor it would probably not be a very effective way to discourage the behavior. Yep I agree, however it's very rewarding/reinforcing for those implementing the punishment as it fulfills a sensory function of control over their environment. Behavior Analysis 101 talks about the classic example of a parent punishing a child for bad behavior with a long timeout; regardless of whether or not it makes a difference on the rate of problem behavior of the child, the parent will keep doing it because they're rewarded with exerting control over the situation and not worrying about the kid. That's why I was unsure whether the point was behavior change or to impart justice; I have a sneaking suspicion the historical underpinnings of our legal system are more grounded in the latter than the former. For me it would also depend on the severity of the crime; I'd be more interested in imparting justice vs. behavior change if it was a serial killer or child rapist or something, but for something like shoplifting it would be vice versa. If behavior change was the goal, incarceration could still work, but the lengths of time would need to be much shorter, days/weeks instead of months/years. Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 23:53 Salazarz wrote:On July 31 2023 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On July 31 2023 13:22 Salazarz wrote:
Median rent in SF is $3000 per month. A $15/hour job nets you $2400 per month working 40 hours per week, before taxes are paid. But sure, hopelessness and lack of opportunity aren't real. Just gotta put more people behind bars to make the rest of the troublemakers fall in line and start pursuing The American Dream in earnest. At first I thought this was a fair point, but then I realized the median rent price doesn't tell us much when we are trying specifically to focus on the "underbelly" of society. If the spread is huge, and the 10th percentile is $500, then a $15/hour job allows you to pay your rent just fine. You don't compare the median rent with the minimum wage, because the median rent should correspond approximately with the median wage. Of course, in the case of SF specifically I am pretty confident that the p10 is also far too high, and then you have the problem that minimum earners cannot live in the city they are expected to work in... and that would be a fair point to make. Furthermore, regarding homelessness, it's quite a vicious circle, because I don't doubt you can join a gang that knocks over supermarkets to steal pallets of tide pods while homeless, but it's probably hard to hold down any kind of job without a permanent address. So if rent is too expensive, people on minimum wage are forced out of their homes, which in turn causes them to lose the job they had, and are now homeless and forced to turn to crime to subsist. People don't just turn to crime because they're starving and homeless. A lot of crime is committed because people simply feel stuck and see no way to improve their lives via legal means. You might be able to afford a crappy box apartment and your daily dose of ramen on a minimum wage job, but if that's all you have to look forward to for the next 50 years, well, it's not surprising if one day you start stealing tide pods (or stealing cars, or breaking into nicer apartments, whatever). And to someone like that, the threat of a longer prison sentence ain't likely to mean much. As far as they're concerned, life sucks and will always suck, anyway. Very true, that's why the state would need to go out of its way to ensure those who are struggling enough to engage in shoplifting see success when using legal means. State-sponsored work programs engaging in meaningful work that ensure decently high wages. I think for behaviour changes and incarceration a very important part is also how you spend that incarceration.
Use that time where someone is in prison and the state more or less has control over them to help them once they are outside. Job training programs and just basic household management 101, helping them balance a check book, budget for necessities and prioritise luxuries ect, basic 'how do I function as a member of society' stuff that the average citizen probably takes for granted can help them lead better lives once they have served their time.
Rather then prison simply being a general education in how to be better criminals which it feels like is often the case now. Average person goes into prison, hardened criminal comes out the other end.
|
On August 01 2023 00:14 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 23:59 Ryzel wrote:On July 31 2023 23:51 ChristianS wrote:
Thanks for that. I was thinking somebody with professional experience in behavior and operating conditioning would be able to illuminate a little more why the current system doesn’t work. I didn’t get into it since it’s not my area, but my suspicion is that if operant conditioning is your goal, incarceration is a pretty poor choice of stimulus. It’s too abstract, and too removed from the actual behavior to actually be effective training. If you locked your dog up in Rikers every time they shit on the floor it would probably not be a very effective way to discourage the behavior. Yep I agree, however it's very rewarding/reinforcing for those implementing the punishment as it fulfills a sensory function of control over their environment. Behavior Analysis 101 talks about the classic example of a parent punishing a child for bad behavior with a long timeout; regardless of whether or not it makes a difference on the rate of problem behavior of the child, the parent will keep doing it because they're rewarded with exerting control over the situation and not worrying about the kid. That's why I was unsure whether the point was behavior change or to impart justice; I have a sneaking suspicion the historical underpinnings of our legal system are more grounded in the latter than the former. For me it would also depend on the severity of the crime; I'd be more interested in imparting justice vs. behavior change if it was a serial killer or child rapist or something, but for something like shoplifting it would be vice versa. If behavior change was the goal, incarceration could still work, but the lengths of time would need to be much shorter, days/weeks instead of months/years. On July 31 2023 23:53 Salazarz wrote:On July 31 2023 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On July 31 2023 13:22 Salazarz wrote:
Median rent in SF is $3000 per month. A $15/hour job nets you $2400 per month working 40 hours per week, before taxes are paid. But sure, hopelessness and lack of opportunity aren't real. Just gotta put more people behind bars to make the rest of the troublemakers fall in line and start pursuing The American Dream in earnest. At first I thought this was a fair point, but then I realized the median rent price doesn't tell us much when we are trying specifically to focus on the "underbelly" of society. If the spread is huge, and the 10th percentile is $500, then a $15/hour job allows you to pay your rent just fine. You don't compare the median rent with the minimum wage, because the median rent should correspond approximately with the median wage. Of course, in the case of SF specifically I am pretty confident that the p10 is also far too high, and then you have the problem that minimum earners cannot live in the city they are expected to work in... and that would be a fair point to make. Furthermore, regarding homelessness, it's quite a vicious circle, because I don't doubt you can join a gang that knocks over supermarkets to steal pallets of tide pods while homeless, but it's probably hard to hold down any kind of job without a permanent address. So if rent is too expensive, people on minimum wage are forced out of their homes, which in turn causes them to lose the job they had, and are now homeless and forced to turn to crime to subsist. People don't just turn to crime because they're starving and homeless. A lot of crime is committed because people simply feel stuck and see no way to improve their lives via legal means. You might be able to afford a crappy box apartment and your daily dose of ramen on a minimum wage job, but if that's all you have to look forward to for the next 50 years, well, it's not surprising if one day you start stealing tide pods (or stealing cars, or breaking into nicer apartments, whatever). And to someone like that, the threat of a longer prison sentence ain't likely to mean much. As far as they're concerned, life sucks and will always suck, anyway. Very true, that's why the state would need to go out of its way to ensure those who are struggling enough to engage in shoplifting see success when using legal means. State-sponsored work programs engaging in meaningful work that ensure decently high wages. I think the problem is that there simply are not enough jobs that an unskilled worker can meaningfully do for such a scheme to be rolled out at the required scale. If enough of said jobs existed they wouldn't be in this predicament to begin with. A state work program would basically just be paying workers to do useless, inefficient work. Kind of like how in Soviet Russia workers were paid to dig holes then fill them in.
You're paying to support those guys regardless whether they do useless work or rot in prison, anyway. It's actually cheaper to pay them a decent wage than to keep them in jail. And it doesn't have to be 'useless' work -- get those people to plant some trees or work on minor infrastructure projects, put down some new bicycle lanes, clean up some of the shittier graffiti around town, etc. Yes, it's not going to be some hyper-efficient high-priority work, but it can help restore some of the community spirit, produce some visible change the guys can be proud of, and bottomline, it's just better than stealing tide pods and doing time behind bars.
|
On August 01 2023 02:05 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2023 00:14 gobbledydook wrote:On July 31 2023 23:59 Ryzel wrote:On July 31 2023 23:51 ChristianS wrote:
Thanks for that. I was thinking somebody with professional experience in behavior and operating conditioning would be able to illuminate a little more why the current system doesn’t work. I didn’t get into it since it’s not my area, but my suspicion is that if operant conditioning is your goal, incarceration is a pretty poor choice of stimulus. It’s too abstract, and too removed from the actual behavior to actually be effective training. If you locked your dog up in Rikers every time they shit on the floor it would probably not be a very effective way to discourage the behavior. Yep I agree, however it's very rewarding/reinforcing for those implementing the punishment as it fulfills a sensory function of control over their environment. Behavior Analysis 101 talks about the classic example of a parent punishing a child for bad behavior with a long timeout; regardless of whether or not it makes a difference on the rate of problem behavior of the child, the parent will keep doing it because they're rewarded with exerting control over the situation and not worrying about the kid. That's why I was unsure whether the point was behavior change or to impart justice; I have a sneaking suspicion the historical underpinnings of our legal system are more grounded in the latter than the former. For me it would also depend on the severity of the crime; I'd be more interested in imparting justice vs. behavior change if it was a serial killer or child rapist or something, but for something like shoplifting it would be vice versa. If behavior change was the goal, incarceration could still work, but the lengths of time would need to be much shorter, days/weeks instead of months/years. On July 31 2023 23:53 Salazarz wrote:On July 31 2023 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On July 31 2023 13:22 Salazarz wrote:
Median rent in SF is $3000 per month. A $15/hour job nets you $2400 per month working 40 hours per week, before taxes are paid. But sure, hopelessness and lack of opportunity aren't real. Just gotta put more people behind bars to make the rest of the troublemakers fall in line and start pursuing The American Dream in earnest. At first I thought this was a fair point, but then I realized the median rent price doesn't tell us much when we are trying specifically to focus on the "underbelly" of society. If the spread is huge, and the 10th percentile is $500, then a $15/hour job allows you to pay your rent just fine. You don't compare the median rent with the minimum wage, because the median rent should correspond approximately with the median wage. Of course, in the case of SF specifically I am pretty confident that the p10 is also far too high, and then you have the problem that minimum earners cannot live in the city they are expected to work in... and that would be a fair point to make. Furthermore, regarding homelessness, it's quite a vicious circle, because I don't doubt you can join a gang that knocks over supermarkets to steal pallets of tide pods while homeless, but it's probably hard to hold down any kind of job without a permanent address. So if rent is too expensive, people on minimum wage are forced out of their homes, which in turn causes them to lose the job they had, and are now homeless and forced to turn to crime to subsist. People don't just turn to crime because they're starving and homeless. A lot of crime is committed because people simply feel stuck and see no way to improve their lives via legal means. You might be able to afford a crappy box apartment and your daily dose of ramen on a minimum wage job, but if that's all you have to look forward to for the next 50 years, well, it's not surprising if one day you start stealing tide pods (or stealing cars, or breaking into nicer apartments, whatever). And to someone like that, the threat of a longer prison sentence ain't likely to mean much. As far as they're concerned, life sucks and will always suck, anyway. Very true, that's why the state would need to go out of its way to ensure those who are struggling enough to engage in shoplifting see success when using legal means. State-sponsored work programs engaging in meaningful work that ensure decently high wages. I think the problem is that there simply are not enough jobs that an unskilled worker can meaningfully do for such a scheme to be rolled out at the required scale. If enough of said jobs existed they wouldn't be in this predicament to begin with. A state work program would basically just be paying workers to do useless, inefficient work. Kind of like how in Soviet Russia workers were paid to dig holes then fill them in. You're paying to support those guys regardless whether they do useless work or rot in prison, anyway. It's actually cheaper to pay them a decent wage than to keep them in jail. And it doesn't have to be 'useless' work -- get those people to plant some trees or work on minor infrastructure projects, put down some new bicycle lanes, clean up some of the shittier graffiti around town, etc. Yes, it's not going to be some hyper-efficient high-priority work, but it can help restore some of the community spirit, produce some visible change the guys can be proud of, and bottomline, it's just better than stealing tide pods and doing time behind bars.
The interesting thing about that is that community work has been implemented successfully as part of rehabilitation, often used for juvenile offenders. Somehow when the line to adulthood is crossed we suddenly prefer punitive measures just because there's a gray area of "slave labor" that must be avoided at all cost. At. All. Cost. Truly. It's not considered slave labor as long as they're minors, but just a few years later it suddenly is. Adults are to remain idle between walls for weeks or months or years instead of being offered a path forward/back into professional life. Make it make sense.
|
On July 31 2023 22:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2023 19:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 31 2023 16:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2023 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't understand why there's a conflict between 'prosecute people for committing crimes' and 'address the structural, underlying reasons for why people commit crimes'? You can do both. Frequently the "crime" is "addressing the structural underlying reasons" as seen in the Nixon example: + Show Spoiler +“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” It goes all the way back to the origins of police as slave catchers where the crime was not being a slave. I mean yeah drug laws are one area where police enforcement makes the problem worse not better, and that Erlichman quote is atrocious. But you can fix drug laws, regulate and legalize possession and use (and even sale) of the most common/all drugs, free all the people who are imprisoned for use or possession, and still punish people who commit theft. I think the former is more important than the latter, but I mean, I don't want people to just repeatedly go to stores and steal stuff. Obviously I want cost of living in the most expensive cities to decrease, and I want more equitable pay so the lowest paid wage earners can afford to make a living, and I want a penal system to focus on rehabilitation not punishment, and I want society as a whole to combat poverty and provide decent education and real opportunities in life for everybody and I want the people who fall through the cracks to be picked up early on etc etc etc. I still want theft to be punished. I'm not saying that it's particularly sensible to have a long stay in jail for someone stealing tide pods, but at the very least do something about those fencing operations that are obviously full of stolen goods. (Here, you'd definitely require a permit to set up shop like that..) Like, we have repeat offending thieves in Norway too, without really going away for long even if they are caught in the act. I have a friend who works as a store clerk who shares some stories. But those are exclusively alcoholics who steal beer/food. I've heard of breakins where people steal pallets of cigarettes because those you can also move pretty easily, but medical supplies and razor blades and hygiene products and clothes? Really shouldn't be hard to kill off those markets. I meant to explain why they are in conflict under the status quo, not suggest that addressing aberrant behaviors and their social causes are mutually exclusive intrinsically. I think you missed a bit of my point though. If slavers build a justice system that makes the person escaping slavery the criminal and the person enslaving them the functional member of society (they did in the US), then prosecuting the crime and addressing the underlying the structural reasons the crime was committed are opposing goals. It also makes trying to turn "criminals" into "functioning members of society" a pretty foolish and problematic goal. The specific conditions have changed significantly (less so for the slaves the US keeps in cages and forces to work for $0.00/hr) but the basic premise remains. I am entirely on board with the US system being an aberration in many ways and tbh my argument is more principled in nature, in the sense that I believe theft is one thing the police should police. The way I understand it you guys have several actors that in various ways benefit from having an incarcerated population and that these actors have successfully lobbied to ensure just that. Not qualified to opine on the racial component (as in I cant state with confidence one way or the other that this is part of the motivation rather than just economic concerns) but I'm also not arguing it isn't a factor and obviously I think that part is massively fucked up.
Part of the issue I'm trying to illustrate is that the framing of theft as shoplifting from Walgreens requires one to accept that the billions of dollars of profit they take from workers isn't the crime in a way similar to how people convinced themselves enslaving people wasn't the crime, but a slave escaping was.
|
On July 31 2023 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 19:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 31 2023 16:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2023 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't understand why there's a conflict between 'prosecute people for committing crimes' and 'address the structural, underlying reasons for why people commit crimes'? You can do both. Frequently the "crime" is "addressing the structural underlying reasons" as seen in the Nixon example: + Show Spoiler +“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” It goes all the way back to the origins of police as slave catchers where the crime was not being a slave. I mean yeah drug laws are one area where police enforcement makes the problem worse not better, and that Erlichman quote is atrocious. But you can fix drug laws, regulate and legalize possession and use (and even sale) of the most common/all drugs, free all the people who are imprisoned for use or possession, and still punish people who commit theft. I think the former is more important than the latter, but I mean, I don't want people to just repeatedly go to stores and steal stuff. Obviously I want cost of living in the most expensive cities to decrease, and I want more equitable pay so the lowest paid wage earners can afford to make a living, and I want a penal system to focus on rehabilitation not punishment, and I want society as a whole to combat poverty and provide decent education and real opportunities in life for everybody and I want the people who fall through the cracks to be picked up early on etc etc etc. I still want theft to be punished. I'm not saying that it's particularly sensible to have a long stay in jail for someone stealing tide pods, but at the very least do something about those fencing operations that are obviously full of stolen goods. (Here, you'd definitely require a permit to set up shop like that..) Like, we have repeat offending thieves in Norway too, without really going away for long even if they are caught in the act. I have a friend who works as a store clerk who shares some stories. But those are exclusively alcoholics who steal beer/food. I've heard of breakins where people steal pallets of cigarettes because those you can also move pretty easily, but medical supplies and razor blades and hygiene products and clothes? Really shouldn't be hard to kill off those markets. I meant to explain why they are in conflict under the status quo, not suggest that addressing aberrant behaviors and their social causes are mutually exclusive intrinsically. I think you missed a bit of my point though. If slavers build a justice system that makes the person escaping slavery the criminal and the person enslaving them the functional member of society (they did in the US), then prosecuting the crime and addressing the underlying the structural reasons the crime was committed are opposing goals. It also makes trying to turn "criminals" into "functioning members of society" a pretty foolish and problematic goal. The specific conditions have changed significantly (less so for the slaves the US keeps in cages and forces to work for $0.00/hr) but the basic premise remains.
I responded a bit to Ryzel's posts because they were interesting, and in a vacuum, I think if all we had to do was reorient our approach to incarcerations and arrests, then that would be "better". But you're absolutely right as well, that it's pretty serious gaslighting to insinuate that someone who was thrown in prison for life for possessing marijuana must therefore take steps to become a functional member of society, when in the first place it was a perverse White Supremacist framework for policing that landed that person there and judged them as societal malefactors.
If we're going to implement a hypothetical framework where criminals are given the opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate with society, it should be a system that isn't deliberately selecting people to throw in jail based on criteria that have nothing to with delivering justice and everything to do with propping up a White Supremacist prison industrial complex. To begin with, the people being arrested or incarcerated, and thus rehabilitated, should be people who actually were acting in a negative manner to begin with, and so who have actual behaviors that can be rehabilitated.
|
Norway28875 Posts
On August 01 2023 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 22:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 31 2023 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2023 19:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 31 2023 16:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2023 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't understand why there's a conflict between 'prosecute people for committing crimes' and 'address the structural, underlying reasons for why people commit crimes'? You can do both. Frequently the "crime" is "addressing the structural underlying reasons" as seen in the Nixon example: + Show Spoiler +“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” It goes all the way back to the origins of police as slave catchers where the crime was not being a slave. I mean yeah drug laws are one area where police enforcement makes the problem worse not better, and that Erlichman quote is atrocious. But you can fix drug laws, regulate and legalize possession and use (and even sale) of the most common/all drugs, free all the people who are imprisoned for use or possession, and still punish people who commit theft. I think the former is more important than the latter, but I mean, I don't want people to just repeatedly go to stores and steal stuff. Obviously I want cost of living in the most expensive cities to decrease, and I want more equitable pay so the lowest paid wage earners can afford to make a living, and I want a penal system to focus on rehabilitation not punishment, and I want society as a whole to combat poverty and provide decent education and real opportunities in life for everybody and I want the people who fall through the cracks to be picked up early on etc etc etc. I still want theft to be punished. I'm not saying that it's particularly sensible to have a long stay in jail for someone stealing tide pods, but at the very least do something about those fencing operations that are obviously full of stolen goods. (Here, you'd definitely require a permit to set up shop like that..) Like, we have repeat offending thieves in Norway too, without really going away for long even if they are caught in the act. I have a friend who works as a store clerk who shares some stories. But those are exclusively alcoholics who steal beer/food. I've heard of breakins where people steal pallets of cigarettes because those you can also move pretty easily, but medical supplies and razor blades and hygiene products and clothes? Really shouldn't be hard to kill off those markets. I meant to explain why they are in conflict under the status quo, not suggest that addressing aberrant behaviors and their social causes are mutually exclusive intrinsically. I think you missed a bit of my point though. If slavers build a justice system that makes the person escaping slavery the criminal and the person enslaving them the functional member of society (they did in the US), then prosecuting the crime and addressing the underlying the structural reasons the crime was committed are opposing goals. It also makes trying to turn "criminals" into "functioning members of society" a pretty foolish and problematic goal. The specific conditions have changed significantly (less so for the slaves the US keeps in cages and forces to work for $0.00/hr) but the basic premise remains. I am entirely on board with the US system being an aberration in many ways and tbh my argument is more principled in nature, in the sense that I believe theft is one thing the police should police. The way I understand it you guys have several actors that in various ways benefit from having an incarcerated population and that these actors have successfully lobbied to ensure just that. Not qualified to opine on the racial component (as in I cant state with confidence one way or the other that this is part of the motivation rather than just economic concerns) but I'm also not arguing it isn't a factor and obviously I think that part is massively fucked up. Part of the issue I'm trying to illustrate is that the framing of theft as shoplifting from Walgreens requires one to accept that the billions of dollars of profit they take from workers isn't the crime in a way similar to how people convinced themselves enslaving people wasn't the crime, but a slave escaping was.
And I believe that a) taxes on the wealthy should be vastly increased and b) CEO pay should be capped at x amount the lowest paid worker in a company (where my ideal x is a pretty low number, like 3-5, but that's negotiable) and c) tax evasion should be policed much more consistently and, as this is one of the few crimes I believe people make in a calculated manner (x % chance of making y amount of money vs z % chance of having to pay w amount of money/do v amount of time), subject to harsher punishment, because I think this is an area where it would actually be a deterrence.
That said I do think, ideally, the rule of law has some intrinsic value to it and that there is a difference between breaking a law and following the law, even if I also adhere to mlk's 'one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws'. (As far as I'm concerned, that quote does not justify stealing from an immoral and wealthy company, as I still consider laws against theft just laws.)
|
On August 01 2023 03:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2023 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2023 22:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 31 2023 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2023 19:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 31 2023 16:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2023 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't understand why there's a conflict between 'prosecute people for committing crimes' and 'address the structural, underlying reasons for why people commit crimes'? You can do both. Frequently the "crime" is "addressing the structural underlying reasons" as seen in the Nixon example: + Show Spoiler +“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” It goes all the way back to the origins of police as slave catchers where the crime was not being a slave. I mean yeah drug laws are one area where police enforcement makes the problem worse not better, and that Erlichman quote is atrocious. But you can fix drug laws, regulate and legalize possession and use (and even sale) of the most common/all drugs, free all the people who are imprisoned for use or possession, and still punish people who commit theft. I think the former is more important than the latter, but I mean, I don't want people to just repeatedly go to stores and steal stuff. Obviously I want cost of living in the most expensive cities to decrease, and I want more equitable pay so the lowest paid wage earners can afford to make a living, and I want a penal system to focus on rehabilitation not punishment, and I want society as a whole to combat poverty and provide decent education and real opportunities in life for everybody and I want the people who fall through the cracks to be picked up early on etc etc etc. I still want theft to be punished. I'm not saying that it's particularly sensible to have a long stay in jail for someone stealing tide pods, but at the very least do something about those fencing operations that are obviously full of stolen goods. (Here, you'd definitely require a permit to set up shop like that..) Like, we have repeat offending thieves in Norway too, without really going away for long even if they are caught in the act. I have a friend who works as a store clerk who shares some stories. But those are exclusively alcoholics who steal beer/food. I've heard of breakins where people steal pallets of cigarettes because those you can also move pretty easily, but medical supplies and razor blades and hygiene products and clothes? Really shouldn't be hard to kill off those markets. I meant to explain why they are in conflict under the status quo, not suggest that addressing aberrant behaviors and their social causes are mutually exclusive intrinsically. I think you missed a bit of my point though. If slavers build a justice system that makes the person escaping slavery the criminal and the person enslaving them the functional member of society (they did in the US), then prosecuting the crime and addressing the underlying the structural reasons the crime was committed are opposing goals. It also makes trying to turn "criminals" into "functioning members of society" a pretty foolish and problematic goal. The specific conditions have changed significantly (less so for the slaves the US keeps in cages and forces to work for $0.00/hr) but the basic premise remains. I am entirely on board with the US system being an aberration in many ways and tbh my argument is more principled in nature, in the sense that I believe theft is one thing the police should police. The way I understand it you guys have several actors that in various ways benefit from having an incarcerated population and that these actors have successfully lobbied to ensure just that. Not qualified to opine on the racial component (as in I cant state with confidence one way or the other that this is part of the motivation rather than just economic concerns) but I'm also not arguing it isn't a factor and obviously I think that part is massively fucked up. Part of the issue I'm trying to illustrate is that the framing of theft as shoplifting from Walgreens requires one to accept that the billions of dollars of profit they take from workers isn't the crime in a way similar to how people convinced themselves enslaving people wasn't the crime, but a slave escaping was. And I believe that a) taxes on the wealthy should be vastly increased and b) CEO pay should be capped at x amount the lowest paid worker in a company (where my ideal x is a pretty low number, like 3-5, but that's negotiable) and c) tax evasion should be policed much more consistently and, as this is one of the few crimes I believe people make in a calculated manner (x % chance of making y amount of money vs z % chance of having to pay w amount of money/do v amount of time), subject to harsher punishment, because I think this is an area where it would actually be a deterrence. That said I do think, ideally, the rule of law has some intrinsic value to it and that there is a difference between breaking a law and following the law, even if I also adhere to mlk's 'one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws'. (As far as I'm concerned, that quote does not justify stealing from an immoral and wealthy company, as I still consider laws against theft just laws.)
Capping CEO salary at 5 times sounds great in theory, but the biggest companies will then move their business to another country. The resulting loss in state revenue and jobs disincentivizes this policy. Even the workers themselves would oppose it, and for good reason.
|
On August 01 2023 04:14 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2023 03:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 01 2023 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2023 22:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 31 2023 20:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2023 19:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 31 2023 16:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2023 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't understand why there's a conflict between 'prosecute people for committing crimes' and 'address the structural, underlying reasons for why people commit crimes'? You can do both. Frequently the "crime" is "addressing the structural underlying reasons" as seen in the Nixon example: + Show Spoiler +“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” It goes all the way back to the origins of police as slave catchers where the crime was not being a slave. I mean yeah drug laws are one area where police enforcement makes the problem worse not better, and that Erlichman quote is atrocious. But you can fix drug laws, regulate and legalize possession and use (and even sale) of the most common/all drugs, free all the people who are imprisoned for use or possession, and still punish people who commit theft. I think the former is more important than the latter, but I mean, I don't want people to just repeatedly go to stores and steal stuff. Obviously I want cost of living in the most expensive cities to decrease, and I want more equitable pay so the lowest paid wage earners can afford to make a living, and I want a penal system to focus on rehabilitation not punishment, and I want society as a whole to combat poverty and provide decent education and real opportunities in life for everybody and I want the people who fall through the cracks to be picked up early on etc etc etc. I still want theft to be punished. I'm not saying that it's particularly sensible to have a long stay in jail for someone stealing tide pods, but at the very least do something about those fencing operations that are obviously full of stolen goods. (Here, you'd definitely require a permit to set up shop like that..) Like, we have repeat offending thieves in Norway too, without really going away for long even if they are caught in the act. I have a friend who works as a store clerk who shares some stories. But those are exclusively alcoholics who steal beer/food. I've heard of breakins where people steal pallets of cigarettes because those you can also move pretty easily, but medical supplies and razor blades and hygiene products and clothes? Really shouldn't be hard to kill off those markets. I meant to explain why they are in conflict under the status quo, not suggest that addressing aberrant behaviors and their social causes are mutually exclusive intrinsically. I think you missed a bit of my point though. If slavers build a justice system that makes the person escaping slavery the criminal and the person enslaving them the functional member of society (they did in the US), then prosecuting the crime and addressing the underlying the structural reasons the crime was committed are opposing goals. It also makes trying to turn "criminals" into "functioning members of society" a pretty foolish and problematic goal. The specific conditions have changed significantly (less so for the slaves the US keeps in cages and forces to work for $0.00/hr) but the basic premise remains. I am entirely on board with the US system being an aberration in many ways and tbh my argument is more principled in nature, in the sense that I believe theft is one thing the police should police. The way I understand it you guys have several actors that in various ways benefit from having an incarcerated population and that these actors have successfully lobbied to ensure just that. Not qualified to opine on the racial component (as in I cant state with confidence one way or the other that this is part of the motivation rather than just economic concerns) but I'm also not arguing it isn't a factor and obviously I think that part is massively fucked up. Part of the issue I'm trying to illustrate is that the framing of theft as shoplifting from Walgreens requires one to accept that the billions of dollars of profit they take from workers isn't the crime in a way similar to how people convinced themselves enslaving people wasn't the crime, but a slave escaping was. And I believe that a) taxes on the wealthy should be vastly increased and b) CEO pay should be capped at x amount the lowest paid worker in a company (where my ideal x is a pretty low number, like 3-5, but that's negotiable) and c) tax evasion should be policed much more consistently and, as this is one of the few crimes I believe people make in a calculated manner (x % chance of making y amount of money vs z % chance of having to pay w amount of money/do v amount of time), subject to harsher punishment, because I think this is an area where it would actually be a deterrence. That said I do think, ideally, the rule of law has some intrinsic value to it and that there is a difference between breaking a law and following the law, even if I also adhere to mlk's 'one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws'. (As far as I'm concerned, that quote does not justify stealing from an immoral and wealthy company, as I still consider laws against theft just laws.) Capping CEO salary at 5 times sounds great in theory, but the biggest companies will then move their business to another country. The resulting loss in state revenue and jobs disincentivizes this policy. Even the workers themselves would oppose it, and for good reason.
That is the usual argument against it, but I think it's bullshit. If the USA put that into law, they'd have Canada and the EU onboard in no time flat. The UK would maybe strubble a bit thinking this is the lifeline they need to kickstart their economy again before also accepting. And at that point, where do these companies go? They can either found their headquarters in a BRICS country, where they don't actually want to be, or accept it. Mailbox companies are an option, but as long as you word the laws to cover that kind of nonsense, I think it's pretty easy to do without these companies leaving. However, I also don't think it solves the issue, because the salary of the CEO is mostly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Bezos, Musk, Gates, etc. aren't filthy stinking rich because they were the CEO. They're filthy stinking rich because they were the founders and maintained a good slice of ownership of some of the most highly valued companies on the planet. CEOs of banks, oil, pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. get paid ridiculous wages, but if you curb that, stockholders will just shrug and say "I guess we pay ourselves more dividends then"
|
|
|
On July 31 2023 22:34 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah, “diminishing returns” is one way to think of it. Another is to actually look at causes and consequences of the crime you’re worried about, as well as the punishment you’re proposing, and try to figure out what’s actually happening, rather than treating the whole system as a black box for which you only have one input (raising/lowering sentences). More work than “hurt them til they stop,” I know, but if crime is as serious a problem as you seem to think, maybe we have an obligation to get off our asses and actually study something instead of assuming “more punishment -> less crime” is all we need to know.
Thing is, crime is one of the biggest causes of the societal ills that people think cause crime like blight and poverty. Crime is the cause of those, not the other way around!
On July 31 2023 23:53 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On July 31 2023 13:22 Salazarz wrote:
Median rent in SF is $3000 per month. A $15/hour job nets you $2400 per month working 40 hours per week, before taxes are paid. But sure, hopelessness and lack of opportunity aren't real. Just gotta put more people behind bars to make the rest of the troublemakers fall in line and start pursuing The American Dream in earnest. At first I thought this was a fair point, but then I realized the median rent price doesn't tell us much when we are trying specifically to focus on the "underbelly" of society. If the spread is huge, and the 10th percentile is $500, then a $15/hour job allows you to pay your rent just fine. You don't compare the median rent with the minimum wage, because the median rent should correspond approximately with the median wage. Of course, in the case of SF specifically I am pretty confident that the p10 is also far too high, and then you have the problem that minimum earners cannot live in the city they are expected to work in... and that would be a fair point to make. Furthermore, regarding homelessness, it's quite a vicious circle, because I don't doubt you can join a gang that knocks over supermarkets to steal pallets of tide pods while homeless, but it's probably hard to hold down any kind of job without a permanent address. So if rent is too expensive, people on minimum wage are forced out of their homes, which in turn causes them to lose the job they had, and are now homeless and forced to turn to crime to subsist. People don't just turn to crime because they're starving and homeless. A lot of crime is committed because people simply feel stuck and see no way to improve their lives via legal means. You might be able to afford a crappy box apartment and your daily dose of ramen on a minimum wage job, but if that's all you have to look forward to for the next 50 years, well, it's not surprising if one day you start stealing tide pods (or stealing cars, or breaking into nicer apartments, whatever). And to someone like that, the threat of a longer prison sentence ain't likely to mean much. As far as they're concerned, life sucks and will always suck, anyway.
While true, its not really relevant. When we are talking about American criminals, most of them started their criminal "career" at the age of 4 or something like that, where they started bullying their siblings. Eventually they went to grade school where they...bullied their classmates and made it impossible for anyone to learn. Then they got to their teens, dropped out and started doing real crime (although we shouldn't downplay the K-8 bullying, often it results in permanent bodily harm to classmates as well).
|
On August 01 2023 05:06 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 22:34 ChristianS wrote:
Yeah, “diminishing returns” is one way to think of it. Another is to actually look at causes and consequences of the crime you’re worried about, as well as the punishment you’re proposing, and try to figure out what’s actually happening, rather than treating the whole system as a black box for which you only have one input (raising/lowering sentences). More work than “hurt them til they stop,” I know, but if crime is as serious a problem as you seem to think, maybe we have an obligation to get off our asses and actually study something instead of assuming “more punishment -> less crime” is all we need to know. Thing is, crime is one of the biggest causes of the societal ills that people think cause crime like blight and poverty. Crime is the cause of those, not the other way around! Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 23:53 Salazarz wrote:On July 31 2023 20:30 Acrofales wrote:On July 31 2023 13:22 Salazarz wrote:
Median rent in SF is $3000 per month. A $15/hour job nets you $2400 per month working 40 hours per week, before taxes are paid. But sure, hopelessness and lack of opportunity aren't real. Just gotta put more people behind bars to make the rest of the troublemakers fall in line and start pursuing The American Dream in earnest. At first I thought this was a fair point, but then I realized the median rent price doesn't tell us much when we are trying specifically to focus on the "underbelly" of society. If the spread is huge, and the 10th percentile is $500, then a $15/hour job allows you to pay your rent just fine. You don't compare the median rent with the minimum wage, because the median rent should correspond approximately with the median wage. Of course, in the case of SF specifically I am pretty confident that the p10 is also far too high, and then you have the problem that minimum earners cannot live in the city they are expected to work in... and that would be a fair point to make. Furthermore, regarding homelessness, it's quite a vicious circle, because I don't doubt you can join a gang that knocks over supermarkets to steal pallets of tide pods while homeless, but it's probably hard to hold down any kind of job without a permanent address. So if rent is too expensive, people on minimum wage are forced out of their homes, which in turn causes them to lose the job they had, and are now homeless and forced to turn to crime to subsist. People don't just turn to crime because they're starving and homeless. A lot of crime is committed because people simply feel stuck and see no way to improve their lives via legal means. You might be able to afford a crappy box apartment and your daily dose of ramen on a minimum wage job, but if that's all you have to look forward to for the next 50 years, well, it's not surprising if one day you start stealing tide pods (or stealing cars, or breaking into nicer apartments, whatever). And to someone like that, the threat of a longer prison sentence ain't likely to mean much. As far as they're concerned, life sucks and will always suck, anyway. While true, its not really relevant. When we are talking about American criminals, most of them started their criminal "career" at the age of 4 or something like that, where they started bullying their siblings. Eventually they went to grade school where they...bullied their classmates and made it impossible for anyone to learn. Then they got to their teens, dropped out and started doing real crime (although we shouldn't downplay the K-8 bullying, often it results in permanent bodily harm to classmates as well).
Citation needed on all of the above.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 31 2023 22:34 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2023 18:03 BlackJack wrote:On July 31 2023 14:34 ChristianS wrote:
…most people agree the operant conditioning exists, but that a lot of implementations of it are cruel and inhumane. Sure, you *can* beat your dog/kid/wife when they do something you don’t like, and narrowly speaking it probably will reduce occurrence of the behavior in question. But, uh, there’s some side effects, probably worse ones than whatever they’re doing to annoy you.
You spend so much time complaining about head-empty “woke” liberals, yet your whole theory of criminal justice boils down to “just punish them until they stop, it’s called operant conditioning”? How does that make you any better than some college Tumblr girl to whining about the world based on some half-baked theories about how things should be that would have been dismissed as childish in high school?
Of course it’s not a conspiracy theory that progressives want to reduce sentencing guidelines. Criminal sentences for most crimes are way too punitive. We lock people up way more often and for way longer than most countries, and all we have to show for it is massive prison populations without any clear reduction in crime. Maybe human cognition is more complicated than trying to get a dog to salivate or a rat to push a button? Actually you're the first person in 4 pages of back and forth to acknowledge that punishing people for bad behavior will reduce the behavior in question. So alas we can move on. Do I think we can have a crime-free utopia if we just keep increasing the penalties for all crimes until nobody commits crime and we hang people for jaywalking? No, obviously not. I think any punishment has diminishing returns that will get to a point it is counter-productive if too severe. My contention is that when you have 327 people in NYC getting arrested 6,000 times in one year then you're obviously being too lenient. Only in woke circles is this even a controversial opinion. If your community is having a problem with certain crimes you should consider it the time to crackdown to prevent those crimes instead of allowing it to fester and worsen like an infected wound. Yeah, “diminishing returns” is one way to think of it. Another is to actually look at causes and consequences of the crime you’re worried about, as well as the punishment you’re proposing, and try to figure out what’s actually happening, rather than treating the whole system as a black box for which you only have one input (raising/lowering sentences). More work than “hurt them til they stop,” I know, but if crime is as serious a problem as you seem to think, maybe we have an obligation to get off our asses and actually study something instead of assuming “more punishment -> less crime” is all we need to know. No clue where this 327 people stat is coming from but if the same people are getting arrested ~20 times a year, it sounds like the cops didn’t have anything on them but had a grudge against them for some reason. Otherwise why would they keep arresting them but never charge them? Maybe they wanted to get their “# of arrests” stat up? Or didn’t charge because they wanted to keep the crime stat down? In any case longer sentences isn’t going to help anything if the cops aren’t charging people in the first place. Your general prescription for “as a crime becomes more of a problem you increase punishment” – basically, treat the criminal justice system as a feedback controller, with crime rates as your sensor and sentencing guidelines as your input – is basically what was done for the crack epidemic, and I don’t think it’s generally regarded as very successful (in addition to probably being racist, in that particular case). There’s a lot of problems, one of which is that if you take “more punishment -> less crime” as self-evidently true, rather than something to be shown empirically, there’s never really a moment in time where anybody *lowers* punishment. The crime rate is never too low, people never think “oh that crime isn’t really a problem right now so let’s pull back the sentencing.” So we wind up with the same insane sentencing rules for crack that were established in the 80s because they were set crazy high in a moment of panic and never lowered. Another is that the theoretical prediction “bigger punishments will dissuade people from committing crimes” is relying on a lot of assumptions about people acting as rational agents. A lot of crimes might already be considered “throwing your life away” even *before* criminal justice gets involved, and people do them anyway, so those assumptions might not be on very firm footing. Alternatively, if people are desperate enough to think “My life is fucked anyway, but getting away with this crime might be an escape” no amount of jail time can rationally dissuade them – as far as they’re concerned they have nothing to lose! + Show Spoiler [mostly irrelevant aside] +Of course, it also doesn’t help when at the same time you’re trying to crack down on the drug trade with increased enforcement, the government is also surreptitiously aiding and funding the same drug trade abroad. But that’s hopefully not a factor in modern crime patterns (although how could I know for sure?).
You're strawmanning my position. I said this to you in a previous post
"I don't blame just liberal DAs for the predicament SF is in. I think there are many variables, but I do think stupid woke policies are the common theme among those variables."
Your insistence that I think this is a single variable problem - how severely we punish criminals - is actually not at all what I said. How is studying the root causes of crime contingent on allowing people to steal tide pods?
I think you should be the one that is obliged to defend the theory “as a crime becomes more of a problem you reduce punishment." Because that's what's being done.
|
I don't think anyone is obliged to respond to you if all you have to offer is yet another false dichotomy. He literally addressed the idea of treating crime as a black box with nothing but a "punishment dial" and how there's so much more to the picture, and all you can think of his position is that he must be advocating for less punishment if he disagrees with you. ???
To the point of "clearly these cops are being too lenient", he already addressed that too. If you're seeing really weird arrest and charge statistics, taking that at face value and immediately attributing it to "stupid woke policy" is quite a logical leap. Police departments game statistics to suit whatever narrative they want to craft about crime in their area all the time, it's way more likely something like that could be happening. Or, who knows, maybe it's something completely unrelated to how much police are punishing people!
|
The review is from 1986. Much of the research from back in those days is not up to par with modern standards. Heck even much of the research from just ten years ago can already be rejected today.
And city journal is a far right outlet known for occasionally spreading misinformation. There's not a chance in hell they can be considered credible regarding crime rates by ethnic groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
