91–100 of 244 posts
Studies like this are hard, because they're usually labeled 'racist', or it turns into an ad hominem attack on the authors, or struck down in the media for singling out some minority group. I love the wording as it has a focus on the positive; summed up it basically says: we can't help those who we can't identity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More like the people who designed and operate the system consider everything they do legal This is true by definition. Anyway, what sort of violent crime do you propose to legalize?
Here is one that is fraught where I live - disciplining children with a smack. Many people think hitting children in a disciplinary context should be legal.
At least among the Swedish population, but Id guess likely to similar in other places: >The majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by a small number of persistent violent offenders, typically males, characterized by early onset of violent criminality, substance abuse, personality disorders, and nonviolent criminality. Very interesting, so if you get past your teens without criminality you seem to not become a cri…
'Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man'
There is a lot of truth in this. When I think back to my childhood there were always a few kids who were just bad.
They came from the same background, had the same advantages, and so on but there was still something evil about them.
Typical behaviours included stuff like sadistic cruelty to animals, bullying , random violence and vandalism with no real logic or reason to why they would act in such a manner?
It could be explained away by saying something would be going on behind the scenes at home but (in these few cases) I really don't believe it.
Of course, from as far as I can remember, all these people went on to be criminals of one sort or another in adulthood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Studies like this are hard, because they're usually labeled 'racist'," Please provide some factual, quantified basis for this statement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/social-media-dumb...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>we encode our own motivations and desires as the impetus I don’t see how that’s true. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say, the system was encoded based on what the designers knew about motivation and desires at the time? The fact that what they knew was based on their own motivations seems incidental. I doubt if they had the perfect formula evidenced and understandable to them at the time, that they would have inten…
> The fact that what they knew was based on their own motivations seems incidental. I doubt if they had the perfect formula evidenced and understandable to them at the time, that they would have intentionally ignored it to still encode it in their own image. My understanding of the comment you’re responding to is that the nature of human experience precludes that ideal understanding, not that people would purposely i…
My point is the comment suggests almost an egocentric process, i.e. modeling a system in our own image, when actually it’s explained by simple ignorance.
Studies like this are hard, because they're usually labeled 'racist', or it turns into an ad hominem attack on the authors, or struck down in the media for singling out some minority group. I love the wording as it has a focus on the positive; summed up it basically says: we can't help those who we can't identity.
What you are saying is troubling because it shows that many people really don't understand what it is that we call racist -- and it's not studies like these. I am a radical leftist (and a radical feminist) and I do not consider a statistical assertion such as "black people in the US are significantly overrepresented among those who commit violent crimes" at all as racist. What is racist (not just "labeled" racist; we…
Xenophobia means "fear of outsiders" and misogyny means "hatred or contempt of women". There's nothing implied or indirect about either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. Looking at the data, we could prevent 90% of violent crimes by locking up all men. Somehow, I don't think most people here would go for that.
That's because it's half of the population. Also, the stronger and more aggressive half which presents a very serious practical obstacle: who would lock them up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be more charitable in your reading of that comment. If you’d prefer, interpret it this way: “These studies can be socially controversial, and so authors must be especially careful in the way they conduct their research and present their conclusions.” At a certain point, demanding empirical evidence for a clearly observable societal zeitgeist becomes disingenuous or obtuse, regardless of how well-intentioned the reque…
I am not being uncharitable. I am asking whether the poster has analyzed the number of studies in the USA, structured as carefully as this one, and found that they are in fact labelled racist more than 50% of the time. And if so, by whom. I don't think the poster needs charity. Clarity is more like it.
What you're asking is not just uncharitable, it doesn't even make sense (even if it was possible).
It's also irrelevant to what the parent said, which is not a quantified claim that such studies are "labelled racist more than 50% of the time", but a casual "usually labelled racist".
In casual conversation "usually" doesn't mean some hard 50% + c, any more so than "often" and "a lot of times".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tautology - People who are effectively deterred from committing crimes do not commit crimes. The system may be very effective at deterring many would-be criminals. Any system will be ineffective against some subset and so this statement would still apply. Under any system, most crime will be committed by those whom that system does not effectively deter.
Yes, true. So, in order to improve the system and reduce crime, you need to understand those who are currently not effectively deterred. More of the same is not going to work if you hope to improve outcomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This study indicates that incarceration, at least as it is currently implemented, is emphatically not a deterrent for repeat violent offenders. As for the public safety element, yes, but these people mostly weren’t locked up for life. What this shows, at least, in my opinion, is that much more intensive psychological and therapeutic interventions are needed, because if anything, incarceration as it currently exists w…
Or, more simply, you could incarcerate repeat offenders for longer periods of time.
Becaue the cost is both clear and intensive: Depriving a human being of liberty for additional years or decades. This should be done only when absolutely neccessary, should it not? We disapprove of imprisonable offenses intensely, but these are still human beings, with rights. It seems to me a humane system does not inflict thousands of cumulative additional incarceration years merely to keep the implementation of justice “simple.”